CA4 Issues Stay, Expedites Appeal

[AliasNeo07]

The chatter here sounds just like what went on before Judge Legg's decision.

Did judge Legg act like judge King? I don't remember

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Before anyone goes and cowboys up open carrying long guns, it might be worth a look to see what happened in California when citizens dared to exercise their right to carry an unloaded firearm. Once the right is clearly established in the Supreme Court, then there may be a benefit to provoking the legislature. Until then, they could pass any damn law they want in an afternoon, and it will take years to undo it.

Californians now have no path under the law wherein they are guaranteed a right to carry. There is even a case that deemed may issue to be constitutional that relied on the fact that people could carry and unloaded firearm.

A couple of months later the legislature banned the open carrying of unloaded handguns. And, as of 2013 (thanks for the correction, Gray), the open carrying of rifles and shotguns is now banned in California.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Mt Airy MD is in Howard Carroll and Montgomery Counties.
If you hear of a person arrested and ( resisting ) its me.
If long gun carry is legal. I will be happy to do it.

 

[MDFF2008]

Did judge Legg act like judge King? I don't remember

He was tough, but a bit more balanced from what krucam has said.

 

[Dogabutila]

2 more weeks now?

 

[Gray Peterson]

Before anyone goes and cowboys up open carrying long guns, it might be worth a look to see what happened in California when citizens dared to exercise their right to carry an unloaded firearm. Once the right is clearly established in the Supreme Court, then there may be a benefit to provoking the legislature. Until then, they could pass any damn law they want in an afternoon, and it will take years to undo it.

Californians now have no path under the law wherein they are guaranteed a right to carry. There is even a case that deemed may issue to be constitutional that relied on the fact that people could carry and unloaded firearm.

A couple of months later the legislature banned the open carrying of unloaded handguns. And, as of 2014, the open carrying of rifles and shotguns is now banned in California.

January 1st, 2013.

 

[krucam]

I found it interesting that, after departing the courtroom and waiting on an elevator, I overheard COL Brown (MSP) ask someone how to get to Judge Motz's chambers. He (COL Brown) had an unknown female with him and there is no telling why he asked the question, but it made me wonder about their potential relationship vis a vis the fact that Motz sat for the first three cases, but not our case.

As was mentioned earlier, Judge Diana Motz presided over the first 3 cases yesterday, stepping out for Woollard, being replaced by Judge Davis.

I think it very, very likely Judge D. Motz recused herself. Her husband, Judge Frederick Motz presided over the Woollard case early on in District, before being replaced by Judge Legg.

Also, before being appointed to CA4, Judge Diana Motz was at the MD US Court of Appeals (State system).
http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/39fed/01usa/html/msa12028.html

Her and Sup't Brown would have likely known each other and with Sup't Brown a Party in this case, it was wise (assuming it happened) for her to recuse herself.

 

[Maverick0313]

Reading this thread makes me sick. When it comes to my God-given right to defend myself, we're talking about stupid nonsense like revolver open carry vs. autoloader? What kind of jacked up opposite land did I wake up in today? What is wrong with this state?!?

Agreed. It's time to leave.

 

[swinokur]

GFSZA and BATFE opinion on home state license issuance for compliance.

 

[LCPIWB]

Mt Airy MD is in Howard Carroll and Montgomery Counties.
If you hear of a person arrested and ( resisting ) its me.
If long gun carry is legal. I will be happy to do it.

Will be checking the news for you. Let us know how it works out.

 

[eruby]

Well this ruined my night.

Thanks to everyone that went on our behalf.

It may have been asked and answered in the millions of pages of this thread...but...does the panel have to rule that judge Legg ruled in error in order to reverse it, or can they just decide the case on the merits, like judge Legg had to do?
I can't believe we're going to have to wait so long for a ruling

Unlike others, I don't want this going to SCOTUS. Just because 5 justices thought the 2A guaranteed an individual right to keep a gun in the house for self defense doesn't mean they will think it allows concealed or open carry.

Maybe if 2 more liberal justices retire and Romney gets to appoint 2...maybe then.

I may have missed this and am wondering as well.

I have read a few times in this thread 'vacate and remand', which seems to mean the CA4 will send it back to the District Court to do it again. If that is so, and we win again at District Court, what is to prevent this from being a never ending cycle of 'we win, off to CA4, vacate and remand .....'?

Thanks to krucam and navycraig!

 

[tsmith1499]

Mt Airy MD is in Howard Carroll and Montgomery Counties.
If you hear of a person arrested and ( resisting ) its me.
If long gun carry is legal. I will be happy to do it.

You left out Frederick. It has Mount airy mailing addresses also.

 

[capman98]

Well I got all cought up this morning. really all in all not as bad as I would have thought. seems at least 1 (possibly 2) judges are willing to at leaast talk about some sort or carry outside the home. I'm not saying it is right but open carry or some sort of revolver carry, as stupid as that may be, is better than what we have now. I don't see how a double action revolver is really any different than my 1911 with a 7-8 roung mag. maby it will not take as long as we think for a ruling. We shall see. Question, was this the Judges only chance to ask questions from the lawyers or can they call them back if they have other questions, want clairifaction on somthing?

 

[krucam]

I may have missed this and am wondering as well.

I have read a few times in this thread 'vacate and remand', which seems to mean the CA4 will send it back to the District Court to do it again. If that is so, and we win again at District Court, what is to prevent this from being a never ending cycle of 'we win, off to CA4, vacate and remand .....'?

Thanks to krucam and navycraig!

I thought this walking out of the court room yesterday, but upon reflection, I guess I'd be very surprised with a remand. On what basis? As we all know, Judge Legg had a very well-written opinion in District. The only basis I could see CA4 using on a remand would be the whole "in the home" argument being undecided by the Supreme Court and within CA4. Very shaky for a remand IMHO.

More likely is a clean ruling for or against us. The Judges all indicated this, they mentioned being well aware of the other cases percolating up and even joked that Alan Gura was "keeping the circuit courts busy lately"...they know a date with the Supreme Court is coming, and it might as well be with this case.

I don't care personally. I'll be pleasantly surprised with a win, not shocked with a loss. A "clean" loss is all I hope for. I'm certain they will be very careful with the ruling as they know everyone's watching at this point...

 

[aray]

Here’s my take. First the bad news:

I think it unlikely we’ll prevail at the CA4 with this panel of judges. Why? Because in addition to any other obstacles others have cited, any of the 3 judges who have aspirations for any further elevation (i.e. SCOTUS – and what judge wouldn’t want to go there?) would never rule in our favor. These are three judges appointed by Clinton and Obama. A ruling significantly expanding 2A Constitutional Rights outside of the home would be fatal if they hoped to be considered by Obama in a second term (or *any* future Democratic president). Likewise, any judge appointed by Obama or Clinton is unlikely to have the judicial temperament sought by a President Romney (or any future Republican POTUS). Their only hopes lie in a Democratic president, and in ruling against expansion of the 2A outside the home. Otherwise they’re as good as disqualified. So while we all hope and pray that the judges would rule solely on the law with no regards to their own future, we all know human nature makes it difficult to completely divorce personal opinions and aspirations.

Again...ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES! Vote accordingly.

Now for the good news:

Gura does not need a win at the CA4 to restore our 2A carry rights. As others have said he only needs to lose quickly, and to get a split across circuits. So even if our circuit loses, a win in other circuits makes it much more likely that the Supreme Court would step in and decide this once and for all for the entire nation. And, assuming Obama does not win reelection and/or does not appoint another SCOTUS judge, with the current make-up we stand a good chance of ultimately prevailing.

I don't care personally. I'll be pleasantly surprised with a win, not shocked with a loss. A "clean" loss is all I hope for. I'm certain they will be very careful with the ruling as they know everyone's watching at this point...

 

[Mr H]

2 more weeks now?

'bout that...

 

[Straightshooter]

Is there any possibility of a plural decision? Could they uphold Judge legg's ruling that G&S is unconstitutional and at the same time decide against 2A outside the home. Or is it all or nothing?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[dlmcbm]

Is there any possibility of a plural decision? Could they uphold Judge legg's ruling that G&S is unconstitutional and at the same time decide against 2A outside the home. Or is it all or nothing?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The whole case is about GSR being unconstitutional. Its not really about 2A outside the home (at least not directly). I pointed out yesterday that Md recognizes 2A outside the home (they issue permits now)and as one judge said "the 2A does not have a GSR clause". With those 2 points it should be case closed.

 

[AliasNeo07]

Before anyone goes and cowboys up open carrying long guns, it might be worth a look to see what happened in California when citizens dared to exercise their right to carry an unloaded firearm. Once the right is clearly established in the Supreme Court, then there may be a benefit to provoking the legislature. Until then, they could pass any damn law they want in an afternoon, and it will take years to undo it.

Californians now have no path under the law wherein they are guaranteed a right to carry. There is even a case that deemed may issue to be constitutional that relied on the fact that people could carry and unloaded firearm.

A couple of months later the legislature banned the open carrying of unloaded handguns. And, as of 2014, the open carrying of rifles and shotguns is now banned in California.

The difference, I believe, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, is that they had the law. We don't...really. I mean the only people saying we can open carry long guns are state's attorneys during a legal case. They really didn't say to us "yeah go ahead its legal." The law itself is iffy at best, and the Attorney General hasn't said whether or not he would prosecute it. I thought he said something to the effect of "we'll have to see."

 

[Mr H]

"We'll know illegal long gun carry when we see it"???

I agree Woollard should be a no-brainer, and that Curran & Co. shouldn't hold sway at the Federal level, but so far reality has dictated otherwise.

Now we wait to see if impartial jurisprudence wins the day, or we get same-old-same-old, and slog through for more pain and delay.